arvan_iac_validate_kubernetes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses kubeconform but does not disclose output format, error handling, or any behavioral traits beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the essential purpose, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete for a validation tool: it lacks output format, error behavior, and details on handling multiple manifests. With no output schema and 3 optional parameters, an agent needs more context to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'manifest' is a YAML string and that 'files'/'directory' are alternative inputs, but does not clarify mutual exclusivity or the structure of 'files' (object mapping filenames to content).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool validates Kubernetes manifests against schema using kubeconform, distinguishing it from sibling tools like arvan_iac_kube_linter or arvan_iac_checkov. It specifies the input options: a single YAML string, files, or directory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where kube-linter or other validators are more appropriate, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.